Pages

Monday, May 4, 2009

Miss California. We haven't blogged about her at Female Impersonator, but I think many of you might have heard about Carrie Prejean's answer to a question from Perez Hilton at the Miss USA pageant on April 19.

"We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage," Miss Prejean said. "And you know what, I think in my country, in my family, I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offence to anybody out there, but that's how I was raised."

Prejean came in first runner up, and it is believed that her answer may have cost her the title at that pageant.

Well, she couldn't stop there just believing that same-sex couples don't deserve to marry. Now she's in Washington D.C., working to launch a campaign opposing same-sex marriage.

Carrie Prejean told NBC's "Today" show Thursday that she'll be working with the National Organization for Marriage to "protect traditional marriages."

The 21-year-old says that marriage is "something that is very dear to my heart" and she's in Washington to help save it.

Same-sex couples cannot marry. You are suggesting that they should be satisfied with the opportunity to marry someone of the opposite sex even though you clearly label them as same-sex couples. How nice of you to disregard their identities and claim that because they can have marriage your heterosexual way, they should be satisfied.

And Perez Hilton was wrong for calling her a dumb bitch. That's messed up. But I do have a problem with Miss California trying to legislate her beliefs. It's perfectly fine for her to believe that same-sex marriage isn't right, but the fact that she is pushing to make it legislation is problematic.

And because that is not pertinent to the original post, that is all I will be saying about that. Thanks.

Excuse me, I made a huge typo. In my last comment I said, "Same-sex couples cannot marry" when it would have been much more accurate to say it is not as easy for same-sex couples to marry due to marriage only being available to them in a few locales.

But I do have a problem with Miss California trying to legislate her beliefs. It's perfectly fine for her to believe that same-sex marriage isn't right, but the fact that she is pushing to make it legislation is problematic.By that same token, one could tell feminists: "It's perfectly fine for you to believe same-sex marriage is right, but the fact that you're pushing to make it legislation is problematic."

Actually, anonymous, I deleted your comment because I think I made a bad choice by letting it through, since you basically equated same-sex marriage with murder/rape as things that should be legislated against.

By that same token, one could tell feminists: "It's perfectly fine for you to believe same-sex marriage is right, but the fact that you're pushing to make it legislation is problematic."Amelia's right - that's different because we're not trying to legislate a limiting of rights, which for a lot of same-sex marriage opponents, is based largely on religious grounds. It's discrimination to tell one group of people they can't do a certain thing which is offered to the rest of society based on sexual orientation.

And I think it is not a privilege that should be bestowed based on something like sexuality. One's worth cannot be judged based on sexuality, so why only allow people with a certain kind have this privilege?